Quote from: XinXan on March 09, 2015, 10:00:10 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 09, 2015, 08:50:10 AM

Quote from: XinXan on March 09, 2015, 08:43:18 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 09, 2015, 08:31:51 AM

Quote from: XinXan on March 09, 2015, 08:04:57 AM

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:

Quote

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.

You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha

Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.

In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.

However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.

When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."

Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?

EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.

You are trying to prove that evolution and other theories are bad or they are a failure, even if that was the case that still doesnt prove in any way that God exists, you say there is no way the idea of God can be left out, why? You still didnt give any proof of God at all, you are just trying to prove wrong other theories but proving wrong other theories dont make God real.

You are trying to tell me what I am trying to do? Evolution and similar ideas are NOT a failure. Scientists are a failure at using them to prove much of anything.

Like I said earlier, you are powerful enough that if you want to deny the multitudes of evidence for the existence of God, you can do it, even if it jumps up and bites you in the left eye.

Nothing makes God real or not real. However, if God doesn't exist, then nothing exists, because the highly complex universe operations - including the complex thinking that man has - just don't happen by accident because they "feel" like it today. Science shows that there are causes for everything that exists, and that the causes have to be at least as great as the things that they cause.

You are simply trying to deny yourself right out of existence. And that will happen when you die.